RESUMO
Purpose: This work demonstrates significant advantages in ophthalmic surgeries through the use of picosecond ultrashort laser pulses instead of state-of-the-art nanosecond laser pulses. These ultrashort lasers shall serve as universal tools more effectively combining advantages of high precision, low impact and economic advantages compared to existing instruments. Methods: As samples, we used post-mortem porcine eyes on which we performed the experiments with both picosecond and nanosecond lasers. Performed surgeries were laser iridotomy, (post-) cataract treatment/capsulotomy and selective laser-trabeculoplasty. Pulse widths were between 12 ps and 220 ns with pulse energies between 30 µJ and 10 mJ at 532 nm and 1,064 nm. Additionally, we investigated accompanying shock waves, cavitation bubbles, and heat effects during the ablation processes. Results: For all surgeries, significant differences were observed between picosecond and nanosecond pulses: It was possible to scale the pulse energy down to 10 of microjoules rather than requiring millijoules, and resulting tissue ablations are much more precise, more deterministic and less frayed. The shock wave and cavitation bubble investigation revealed major differences in pressure between picosecond pulses (0.25 MPa, 50 µJ) and nanosecond pulses (37 MPa, 5 mJ). The heat input during ablation could be lowered by two orders of magnitude. Conclusion: Picosecond ultrashort laser pulses show substantial benefits for several ophthalmic surgeries, with regard to ablation precision, shock wave generation and heat input. They are better than state-of-the-art ophthalmic nanosecond lasers in all aspects tested.
RESUMO
Medical and nursing shortages in rural areas represent a current serious public health problem. The healthcare of the rural population is at risk. This study compares perceived workload, job satisfaction and work-life balance of physicians and nurses at a clinic in a rural area with two clinics of a University hospital. Physicians and nurses were interviewed anonymously with a standardized questionnaire (paper and pencil), including questions on job satisfaction, subjective workload and work-life balance. The response rate was almost 50% in the University hospital as well as in the municipal hospital. 32 physicians and 54 nurses from the University hospital and 18 physicians and 137 nurses from the municipal hospital participated in the survey. Nurses at the University hospital assessed the organization of the daily routine with 94.1% as better than those at the municipal hospital (82.4%, p=0.03). Physicians at the University hospital were able to better implement acquired knowledge at a University clinic with 87.5% than their counterparts at the municipal hospital (55.5%, p=0.02). In contrast to their colleagues at the municipal hospital, only 50% of the physicians at the University hospital subjectively considered their workload as just right (83.3% municipal, p=0.02). 96.9% of the physicians at the University hospital were "daily" or "several times a week" under time pressure (municipal 50%, p<0.01). Nurses of both hospitals had sufficient opportunity to reconcile work and family life (62.9% University hospital, 72.8% Municipal hospital). In contrast, only 20% of the physicians at the University Hospital but 42.9% of the physicians of the municipal hospital had sufficient opportunities to balance workload and family (p=0.13). The return rate of almost 50% can be described as good. Due to the small number of physicians, especially from the municipal hospital, it can be assumed that some interesting differences could not be detected. There were only slight differences between the nurses from the two hospitals. In contrast, subjective workload and stress factors reported by physicians at the University Hospital were significantly higher than those by doctors at the municipal hospital.
